People v. Cox

Decision Date22 September 1961
Docket NumberNo. 35686,35686
Citation22 Ill.2d 534,177 N.E.2d 211
PartiesPEOPLE of the State of Illinois, Defendant in Error, v. Clifton COX, Plaintiff in Error.
CourtIllinois Supreme Court

James D. Murphy, Jr., Chicago, for plaintiff in error.

William G. Clark, Atty. Gen., and Daniel P. Ward, State's Atty., Chicago (Fred G. Leach, Asst. Atty. Gen., and John T. Gallagher, and William L. Carlin, Asst. State's Attys., Chicago, of counsel), for defendant in error.

HOUSE, Justice.

Defendant Clifton Cox was indicted jointly with two other men in the criminal court of Cook County for armed robbery. He waived his right to trial by jury and was tried separately. The court found him guilty and sentenced him to the penitentiary for a term of not less than two nor more than ten years. He now prosecutes this writ of error.

Harry Alop, the victim of the armed robbery, testified that at about 4:30 p. m. on January 13, 1959, he picked up three men in his taxi in the vicinity of 1400 West Madison Street in Chicago. He drove them to the High Hat Club in Cicero. When they arrived at about 5:00 p. m., they asked him to stop around the corner. Alop positively identified the defendant as the one who opened the left front door of the taxi and took his keys and money. While the defendant fled, the other two men beat him and cut him with a knife. Alop further testified that he identified the defendant and his two co-defendants at a police line-up the following day.

Patrolman Vos arrived at the scene while the co-defendants were beating Alop. Vos found a penknife under the right floor board of the taxi.

Testifying in his own behalf, the defendant denied knowledge of and participation in the crime. He said he did not know one of the co-defendants and that he had had 'trouble' with the other. As an alibi, he asserted that he had been in a number of West Madison Street taverns between 3:00 p. m. and 5:00 p. m. on January 13. Although he said several persons whom he knew saw him during those two hours, only one witness testified in his behalf. The alibi witness merely placed him at the approximate time and place at which the taxi driver said he picked up the three men. The defendant admitted he made no comment upon hearing the co-defendants implicate him by their statements but stated that he had previously been told by a police officer to 'shut up.'

The defendant first contends that he was denied the right to have counsel of his choice appointed by the court. He wanted a certain attorney from the staff of the public defender. The court ascertained that this attorney was not available and ruled that the trial should proceed with the assistant public defender who was present.

The Criminal Code provides, 'Every person charged with crime shall be allowed counsel, and when he shall state upon oath that he is unable to procure counsel, the court shall assign him competent counsel * * *.' (Ill.Rev.Stat.1959, chap. 38, par. 730.) Section 4 of the Public Defender's Act (Ill.Rev.Stat.1959, chap. 34, par. 5604) provides, 'The Public Defender, as directed by the court, shall act as attorney and counsellor-at-law, * * * for all persons who are held in custody or who are charged with the commission of any criminal offense, and who the court finds are unable to employ counsel. Any court may, with the consent of the defendant, appoint counsel, other than the public defender, and shall so appoint if the defendant shall so demand * * *.'

While section 4 of the Public Defender's Act gives an indigent defendant the right to choose whether he will be represented by the public defender or some other court-appointed attorney, the section does not give such defendant a right to choose a certain member of the public defender's staff.

In addition, this court has provided by Rule that where the defendant upon conviction shall, or may, be punished by imprisonment in the penitentiary and is unable to employ counsel, the court shall appoint counsel to represent him. (Ill.Rev.Stat.1959, chap. 110, par. 101.26.) Thus, while the legislature and this court have given indigent defendants the right to be represented by competent counsel, it does not follow that they have the right to choose such appointed counsel.

The right to choose appointed counsel would not assure an indigent defendant better representation and would raise many practical problems. We hold therefore that an indigent defendant does not have the right to choose his court-appointed counsel. The trial court properly ordered the cause to proceed.

The defendant next contends that appointed counsel was incompetent. This contention is based on decisions recognizing that the incompetence of counsel may be such as to deny a defendant the fair trial that is contemplated by provisions of the State and Federal constitutions. The question of whether a defendant was adequately represented by competent counsel must be answered solely from the circumstances of each particular case (People v. Francis, 356 Ill. 74, 190 N.E. 106); and in order to sustain his position the defendant must clearly establish actual incompetency of counsel and substantial prejudice resulting therefrom, without which the outcome would probably have been different. People v. Morris, 3 Ill.2d 437, 121 N.E.2d 810.

Defendant makes much of the fact that his counsel permitted Detective Bajovich to recount the victim's identification of the defendant and of the knife used by the co-defendants. We do not place the significance on the failure to object to this testimony that defendant does, because the victim had already testified at length as to these matters. Defendant also complains of the admission into evidence of certain incriminating statements of the codefendants. The record reveals, however, that his...

To continue reading

Request your trial
96 cases
  • People v. Lewis
    • United States
    • Illinois Supreme Court
    • November 13, 1981
    ...1976), 552 P.2d 661. A defendant in a criminal case does not, of course, have the right to choose appointed counsel. (People v. Cox (1961), 22 Ill.2d 534, 177 N.E.2d 211, cert. denied (1963), 374 U.S. 855, 83 S.Ct. 1925, 10 L.Ed.2d 1076.) On March 13, after Judge Scott informed defendant th......
  • People v. Hall
    • United States
    • Illinois Supreme Court
    • October 17, 1986
  • Irvin v. State
    • United States
    • Wyoming Supreme Court
    • September 27, 1978
    ... ... E. g., United States v. Burkeen, 355 F.2d 241 (6th Cir. 1966), cert. den., 384 U.S. 957, 86 S.Ct. 1582, 16 L.Ed.2d 553 (1966), reh. den., 385 U.S. 893, 87 S.Ct. 28, 17 L.Ed.2d 127 (1966); People v. Hughes, 57 Cal.2d 89, 17 Cal.Rptr. 617, 367 P.2d 33 (1961); State v. Reid, 146 Conn. 227, 149 A.2d 698 (1959); Douglas v. State, Fla.App., 212 So.2d 42 (1968); People v. Cox, 22 Ill.2d 534, 177 N.E.2d 211 (1961), cert. den., 374 U.S. 855, 83 S.Ct. 1925, 10 L.Ed.2d 1076 (1963); Schuble v ... ...
  • La Rocca v. Lane
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
    • April 7, 1975
    ... ... The defendant, as an indigent, was entitled to the assistance of counsel (Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U.S. 335, 83 S.Ct. 792, 9 L.Ed.2d 799), even though the crime charged was a misdemeanor (County Law, § 722--a). The right to counsel is not absolute (People v. Brabson,9 N.Y.2d 173, 180, 212 N.Y.S.2d 401, 406, 173 N.E.2d 227, 231); thus, the defendant could not force the court to assign particular counsel, even within the Legal Aid Society's office (People v. Howard, 150 Cal.App.2d 428, 310 P.2d 120; People v. Cox, 22 Ill.2d 534, 177 N.E.2d 211, cert ... ...
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT